I'm listening and reading his testimony, while multi-tasking, but so far I have not seen the explosiveness the media is reporting:

1) Comey is speaking in his boring testimony voice (effective for hearings, but not TV)
2) Comey admits telling Trump several times Trump was not the subject of investigation, but he had very good reasons for not saying so publicly. He didn't want to get caught in a situation where he would have to backtrack publicly (like he did with Clinton) if Trump did become a target. He also said he told Trump it was up to his boss in the AG office to make anything public (wonder if this explains why Trump is angry at Sessions).
3) Trump did try to persuade him to drop the Flynn investigation (we all knew he would testify to this, and candidly, Congress. past Presidents and other members of government make these types of pleas on behalf of constituents and others all the time).
4) He didn't take notes on Obama because he only talked with Obama twice briefly. i found it surprising that Obama met with his FBI Director that little. OTOH, Comey has met with Trump a surprising number of times already.
5) Trump stressed loyalty and also made somewhat erratic comments. Again, no surprise there when you look at Trump's tweets. Comey thought he had to make notes. No surprise either, I would. Comey comes off as sincere, and credible.

Not sure I see long term fallout here, other than reinforcing Trump is not a politician and doesn't seem ready to be President, something not to earth shattering. Also not sure why Trump wanted Comey fired, but I have not read the Rosenstein memo either. I think anything that matters will be coming from Mueller. So far, this has been a let down.

wifeisafurd;842845008 said:

---

I'm listening and reading his testimony, while multi-tasking, but so far I have not seen the explosiveness the media is reporting:

---

wifeisafurd, can you use your time machine to tell me what Justin Wilcox's record will be this season. DM me so you won't spoil the others. I don't want to wait.

okaydo;842845012 said:

---

wifeisafurd, can you use your time machine to tell me what Justin Wilcox's record will be this season. DM me so you won't spoil the others. I don't want to wait.

---

The text of his statement has been released and is being read on TV.


CNN: Fired FBI Director James Comey aimed a dagger blow at Donald Trump Wednesday, saying the President had demanded his loyalty, pressed him to drop a probe into ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn and repeatedly pressured him to publicly declare that he was not under investigation.

Comey magnified the political crisis engulfing the White House by releasing his opening statement ahead of a blockbuster appearance on Capitol Hill on Thursday. The dramatic document sketched a stunningly detailed account of Comey's intimate meetings with the President, included direct quotes from Trump and revealed the former FBI chief's discomfort with the President's behavior.
The testimony appeared to bolster the case of Trump critics who believe that the President may have obstructed justice and abused his power in his dealings with Comey, who he later fired.
Comey said that Trump asked him to drop FBI investigations into Flynn centering on his calls with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition, which eventually led to his dismissal as national security adviser after it emerged he had lied about the conversations to Vice President Mike Pence.

He wrote that Trump said: "'I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."
"I replied only that 'he is a good guy.'" Comey wrote, describing a private meeting with Trump in the Oval Office, then added: "I did not say I would 'let this go.'"

Comey said in his testimony that he understood the President to be requesting that he drop the investigation into Flynn. But he says he did not understand Trump to be referring to the wider Russia investigation.

"Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI's role as an independent investigative agency."
Trump critics contended that this encounter appears to be tantamount to an inappropriate pressure on the FBI by the President, an allegation that if proven could have dire consequences for Trump's presidency itself.

"There is a criminal investigation going on of one of the President's top associations ... he gets fired, he is under under investigation and the President brings in the FBI Director and says 'please stop your investigation,'" said CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
"If that isn't obstruction of justice, I don't know what is," Toobin said.
RELATED: James Comey just went nuclear on Donald Trump
But Republicans were quick to seize on the document as well, arguing that it supported Trump's claims that the former FBI chief had told him three times that he was not personally being investigated in the Russia probe.
The testimony was posted without notice on the website of the Senate Intelligence Committee, instantly electrifying Washington, which has been on edge for days ahead of Comey's planned testimony.
The dramatic intervention was classic Comey: the towering FBI chief, branded a "showboat" by Trump, has a reputation for theatrical public coups, and his move will only intensify the anticipation for his appearance on Thursday.

Comey described a March 30 phone call in which he said Trump stressed "the cloud" of the Russia investigations was "interfering with his ability to make deals for the country and said he hoped I could find a way to get out that he wasn't being investigated."
But Comey determined that to offer such an assurance would be unwise, not least because it would have to be corrected should the situation change.
The former FBI chief also wrote a revealing description of Trump's efforts to win his loyalty during their first dinner in January.
Trump, Comey wrote, told him, "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty" during their first dinner in January. Comey said in the statement, "I didn't move, speak or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed." Comey replied, "you will always get honesty from me." He said the President responded, "that's what I want. Honest loyalty."
The former FBI director wrote that he had nine separate conversations with Trump, three of which were in person and six were on the telephone. By comparison, he said he spoke twice with President Barack Obama, and never on the telephone. He said that after meeting Trump he immediately begin to write notes about his conversations with Trump, a practice he didn't adopt before.
Comey offered intimate details of his encounter with Trump in an apparent attempt to create added authenticity to his account.

He said they dined alone on January 27 in the Green Room of the White House at a small oval table and were waited upon by two navy stewards.
He wrote that his instincts told him that the one-on-one setting and the tone of the conversation meant that Trump was seeking to get him to ask to remain in his job, in an attempt to "create some sort of patronage relationship."
"That concerned me greatly, given the FBI's traditionally independent status in the executive branch," Comey wrote. He added that he wrote a memo about the meeting and shared it with the senior leadership of the FBI.

If the Pac releases transcripts from the games, I will tell you about Cal's record.

WIAF, [URL="https://www.lawfareblog.com/initial-comments-james-comeys-written-testimony"][U]here is one take that may change your mind[/U][/URL]...

Quote:

---

Despite this sparseness, or maybe I should say because of it, it is the most shocking single document compiled about the official conduct of the public duties of any President since the release of the Watergate tapes.

---

wifeisafurd;842845015 said:

---

The text of his statement has been released and is being read on TV.

---

I hadn't seen the news, which wasn't on the NY Times home page, which is the only place I checked, shortly before you posted. But you did imply that he was "speaking in his boring testimony voice." Yes, that could be what you lawyers say about transcripted plans to speak, but for me a (non-lawyer) that suggested that he already spoke.

wifeisafurd;842845008 said:

---

4) He didn't take notes on Obama because he only talked with Obama twice briefly. i found it surprising that Obama met with his FBI Director that little. OTOH, Comey has met with Trump a surprising number of times already.

---

Comey and Obama met or spoke one-on-one with nobody else present just twice. Of course they were together multiple times while other people were around.

But Obama, unlike Trump, knew there would be bad optics if he was alone with the FBI director many times, especially amid the Hillary investigation.

Maybe this was the plan all along, to get the word out that he wasn't being investigated. Played again by Drumpf.

okaydo;842845028 said:

---

I hadn't seen the news, which wasn't on the NY Times home page, which is the only place I checked, shortly before you posted. But you did imply that he was "speaking in his boring testimony voice." Yes, that could be what you lawyers say about transcripted plans to speak, but for me a (non-lawyer) that suggested that he already spoke.




Comey and Obama met or spoke one-on-one with nobody else present just twice. Of course they were together multiple times while other people were around.

But Obama, unlike Trump, knew there would be bad optics if he was alone with the FBI director many times, especially amid the Hillary investigation.

---

I see the disconnect. Bad wording on my part. He will be boring. If you have ever heard Comey speak, its in a nasal monotone. Substance wise, he is (will be) good, but he is very understated.

Just to add: Comey, who is good at basketball and 6-foot-8, has said he'd never play basketball with (the basketball-playing) Obama because of the bad optics.

Of course, Obama knew to never invite Comey to play basketball because he also recognized it wouldn't look good.

CalLifer;842845027 said:

---

WIAF, [URL="https://www.lawfareblog.com/initial-comments-james-comeys-written-testimony"][U]here is one take that may change your mind[/U][/URL]...

---

Okay, the FBI director was uncomfortable with contact by the President. Lucky he didn't have to deal with LBJ or some other assertive Presidents. Its creepy, not subtle, etc. but I'm just not hearing anything new other than he did tell Trump he is not being investigated on several occasions. I'm not sure he should have even done that. Why comment on an active investigation to a potential subject of the investigation? In some way, he invited the contact, since Trump than pressured him for a public disclosure that Trump is not being investigated, a disclosure Trump is now getting in any event.

okaydo;842845040 said:

---

Just to add: Comey, who is good at basketball and 6-foot-8, has said he'd never play basketball with (the basketball-playing) Obama because of the bad optics.

Of course, Obama knew to never invite Comey to play basketball because he also recognized it wouldn't look good.

---

LOL. Does Comey have any eligibility left? We need a big and he certainly has the grades for Cal grad school.

Watching the Intel Chiefs sit there and not answer questions posed by a congressional committee speaks volumes. Although there was no executive privilege asserted, they still refused to answer the question as to whether or not the president asked them to talk to Comey about the investigation of Flynn. This was not a good look for the current administration as these individuals also indicated that they had met with White House counsel prior to their testimony. Now comes the release of Comey's memos and they indicate that the president was not happy and asked for his loyalty as well as asking for an end to the Flynn investigation. The question to be asked concerning Trump and Comey is who are you going to believe? Given Trump's penchant for alternative facts and Comey's memos of specific meetings and the language used in those meetings, I'm going to put my money on Comey. Today means, 1ST the issue of obstruction will not go away, 2ND people will go to jail for forgetting to disclose payments from foreign countries, and omitting meetings with Russians in testimony and on security clearance forms under penalty of perjury, 3RD the Intel Chiefs will be forced to disclose what Trump asked them to do regarding the investigation, and 4TH Mueller will discover that Trump has had major financial dealings with the Russians. This administration continues to act like they are guilty of wrongdoing and eventually somebody is going to get immunity and have a story to tell. Until then republicans are left with a choice, either protect the country and its institutions, or protect the man and his associates.

Demanding loyalty from the Director of the FBI is like the Godfather asking for loyalty from his capos and soldiers

WIAF, it's not only that the FBI director was uncomfortable, but (1) this level of one-on-one contact is unprecedented, at least in recent memory (both W. Bush and Obama officials have agreed as much), and (2) Trump's requests about the Flynn investigation may rise to the level of obstruction (which others are at least raising right now). There are issues of black and white legality which maybe this doesn't violate, but there are a large number of norms that any country that purports to value law and order and the independence of law enforcement agencies need to follow, which this most definitely raises questions about.

I think pooh-poohing this does significant damage to the norms and institutions we purport to value and uphold in this country.

wifeisafurd;842845008 said:

---

I'm listening and reading his testimony, while multi-tasking, but so far I have not seen the explosiveness the media is reporting:

1) Comey is speaking in his boring testimony voice (effective for hearings, but not TV)
2) Comey admits telling Trump several times Trump was not the subject of investigation, but he had very good reasons for not saying so publicly. He didn't want to get caught in a situation where he would have to backtrack publicly (like he did with Clinton) if Trump did become a target. He also said he told Trump it was up to his boss in the AG office to make anything public (wonder if this explains why Trump is angry at Sessions).
3) Trump did try to persuade him to drop the Flynn investigation (we all knew he would testify to this, and candidly, Congress. past Presidents and other members of government make these types of pleas on behalf of constituents and others all the time).
4) He didn't take notes on Obama because he only talked with Obama twice briefly. i found it surprising that Obama met with his FBI Director that little. OTOH, Comey has met with Trump a surprising number of times already.
5) Trump stressed loyalty and also made somewhat erratic comments. Again, no surprise there when you look at Trump's tweets. Comey thought he had to make notes. No surprise either, I would. Comey comes off as sincere, and credible.

Not sure I see long term fallout here, other than reinforcing Trump is not a politician and doesn't seem ready to be President, something not to earth shattering. Also not sure why Trump wanted Comey fired, but I have not read the Rosenstein memo either. I think anything that matters will be coming from Mueller. So far, this has been a let down.

---

I want it to be a let down. I am no fan of Trump and did not vote for him. However I do not want the POTUS to be in this level of investigation regardless of political beliefs. I do suspect how damaging the testimony by Comey is seen by many, will fall upon the lines of political affiliation. There is an official investigation underway by a special counsel. If obstruction can be proved then impeachment should be pursued. Otherwise I try to ignore as much of this as possible. A lot of noise. Is there a fire? Perhaps but these political hearings are pure theater primarily. Democrats think he is guilty and he may be. Republicans think he will be vindicated. Again he may be. I think little is accomplished in these hearings other than getting everybody fired up. Few genuine facts are actually dispensed.

I will be very interested in what Mueller is able to find. More importantly what he is able to prove.

wifeisafurd;842845008 said:

---

I'm listening and reading his testimony, while multi-tasking, but so far I have not seen the explosiveness the media is reporting:

1) Comey is speaking in his boring testimony voice (effective for hearings, but not TV)
2) Comey admits telling Trump several times Trump was not the subject of investigation, but he had very good reasons for not saying so publicly. He didn't want to get caught in a situation where he would have to backtrack publicly (like he did with Clinton) if Trump did become a target. He also said he told Trump it was up to his boss in the AG office to make anything public (wonder if this explains why Trump is angry at Sessions).
3) Trump did try to persuade him to drop the Flynn investigation (we all knew he would testify to this, and candidly, Congress. past Presidents and other members of government make these types of pleas on behalf of constituents and others all the time).
4) He didn't take notes on Obama because he only talked with Obama twice briefly. i found it surprising that Obama met with his FBI Director that little. OTOH, Comey has met with Trump a surprising number of times already.
5) Trump stressed loyalty and also made somewhat erratic comments. Again, no surprise there when you look at Trump's tweets. Comey thought he had to make notes. No surprise either, I would. Comey comes off as sincere, and credible.

Not sure I see long term fallout here, other than reinforcing Trump is not a politician and doesn't seem ready to be President, something not to earth shattering. Also not sure why Trump wanted Comey fired, but I have not read the Rosenstein memo either. I think anything that matters will be coming from Mueller. So far, this has been a let down.

---

Just read Comey's advance statement. It just confirms Trump is an unethical sleaze but there is nothing there to put him away with. My guess is nothing happens to him other than his Presidency gets further tainted UNLESS Mueller's investigation uncovers that Trump did some illegal things with the Russians and one of his posse flips on him for leniency. If the evidence ever shows that Russian hackers tampered with the voting machines in the key states (the recently leaked material) my guess is that the Government will suppress it in the interests of saving The Republic. How do you undo an election? The National Guard would be shooting Alt Right protesters down in the streets.

During the debates when Trump suggested the election was going to be rigged I said at the time to my wife that perhaps Trump, or at a minimum his handlers, knew the election was going to rigged in his favor and they were baiting Hillary to make statements that the election must be honored regardless of how it turns out. She took the bait and said all the predicted things and thus sealed herself off from complaining about the outcome (until recently).

What is up with Putin using Oliver Stone and Megan Kelly to launch a PR campaign for himself in the U.S.? Whey would anyone think any of Putin's statements have credibility?

I guess it's a let down to anyone who wants Trump removed.

From a legal standpoint, nothing is new and nothing is going to happen to Trump.

However, the special council is going to find someone to go down, not because of any Russia investigation, but because he has to; someone will misspeak under oath and will be guilty of perjury.

Remember Scooter Libby who gave confused testimony and was deemed have perjured himself. This is what is going to come out of all of this in addition to more taxpayer money going down the drain.

CalLifer;842845049 said:

---

WIAF, it's not only that the FBI director was uncomfortable, but (1) this level of one-on-one contact is unprecedented, at least in recent memory (both W. Bush and Obama officials have agreed as much), and (2) Trump's requests about the Flynn investigation may rise to the level of obstruction (which others are at least raising right now). There are issues of black and white legality which maybe this doesn't violate, but there are a large number of norms that any country that purports to value law and order and the independence of law enforcement agencies need to follow, which this most definitely raises questions about.

I think pooh-poohing this does significant damage to the norms and institutions we purport to value and uphold in this country.

---

I'm not sure it changes the norms. We when practicing our law firm used to have a certain California Senator write all types of letters to federal agencies lobbying for clients, including with respect to criminal investigations. Its ugly, but this happens. I would say that the number of meetings seems unprecedented in recent times, but during the Kennedy or Johnson era, for example, to would not be. Hoover got access whenever he wanted. Is it illegal? My favorite Harvard criminal lawyer said not even close. In fact, the President can simply close the investigation by granting a pardon. Not my area of law, so I can't say. It is unseemly, but in the last couple months, I have developed a high tolerance. My problem is the lack of a smoking gun - nothing new other than Trump is not being investigated. And yes, I do think the FBI and DOJ should be independent, but they do play politics all the time.

Hillary would have fired Comey's sorry ass on day 2

CalLifer;842845027 said:

---

WIAF, [URL="https://www.lawfareblog.com/initial-comments-james-comeys-written-testimony"][U]here is one take that may change your mind[/U][/URL]...

---

The author of that article, Benjamin Wittes, is a close personal friend of James Comey. Why he fails to mention/disclose that in the article, is odd and wrong. He disclosed that initially, but has failed to do so in subsequent articles.

Wittes has been the leading voice of the "what Comey thinks" anti-trump narrative. Not exactly an honest broker.

GB54;842845071 said:

---

Hillary would have fired Comey's sorry ass on day 2

---

No way. She'd invite the scrutiny that Trump got a month ago, only it would be 10 times worse with the Republicans in control of Congress.

She'd never hear the end of it.

She would be blowing up her presidency with that move, which likely would already be mired in new Republican investigations on Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, Seth Rich, Vince Foster.

She would learn to live with Comey, since the point of his 10-year term is to be away from politics.

wifeisafurd;842845067 said:

---

I'm not sure it changes the norms. We when practicing our law firm used to have a certain California Senator write all types of letters to federal agencies lobbying for clients, including with respect to criminal investigations. Its ugly, but this happens. I would say that the number of meetings seems unprecedented in recent times, but during the Kennedy or Johnson era, for example, to would not be. Hoover got access whenever he wanted. Is it illegal? My favorite Harvard criminal lawyer said not even close. In fact, the President can simply close the investigation by granting a pardon. Not my area of law, so I can't say. It is unseemly, but in the last couple months, I have developed a high tolerance. My problem is the lack of a smoking gun - nothing new other than Trump is not being investigated. And yes, I do think the FBI and DOJ should be independent, but they do play politics all the time.

---

I still think this rises to a much different level (this is a President, meeting 1-on-1 with the FBI director, demanding loyalty, and asking to change the course of investigations into his inner circle, and I don't think it compares with the scenarios you list. Yes, government officials asking for consideration is one thing, but having the person who has direct authority over your hiring and firing basically meet with you 1-on-1 and try to influence an active investigation should be far beyond the pale for a president. That it's not, to me, is quite a sad statement. The active question of whether an act crosses a criminal line being the only question of whether a president is fit to lead seems to me to be way past the point where he is actually fit to lead.

Further, yes, of course the president can pardon anyone he likes at any time he likes; however, that is basically an admission of wrongdoing that could directly tie to him, and the optics of that would be terrible across the country, I would think. Doing that would only intensify the scrutiny of Trump, as it should.

This is completely unsurprising. The media today is horrible. Things are spun and distorted to such a degree that it is unbelievable sometimes. I challenge everyone to do one thing: watch or read primary sources in their entirety before you read the news. You can use the White House's youtube channel. Almost all quotes from President Trump are taken during and after various ceremonies, most of which are uploaded to the channel. I am not saying you will change your political philosophies. But listen to the President for one month before you read the news and I guarantee you will lose all respect for outlets like CNN, Reuters, and The New York Times. They really are fake news. Their reporting is often completely detached from reality. And yes, you have the time. Watching one to three ten minute Youtube videos a day really isn't that big of a deal. Many of you consume hours of news media a day in various forms.

I'll give you one example that I guarantee none of you knew: President Trump has stated multiple times that he would consider passing healthcare reform with the Democrats rather than the Republicans. And no, FoxNews doesn't report this type of thing either.

The thing I don't understand is why Trump hasn't (doesn't) simply pardon Flynn. There would be political heat for a few days (tempered by many claiming Flynn was a "good guy" as Comey said), but that would end that part of the investigation, leaving only the Russian collusion part of the equation (of which there is no evidence).

BearGoggles;842845073 said:

---

The author of that article, Benjamin Wittes, is a close personal friend of James Comey. Why he fails to mention/disclose that in the article, is odd and wrong. He disclosed that initially, but has failed to do so in subsequent articles.

Wittes has been the leading voice of the "what Comey thinks" anti-trump narrative. Not exactly an honest broker.

---

I didn't know that, and I agree with you that it should be disclosed. However, one thing in his favor, is he uses Comey's statement to make his case. It is clear that Comey has been uncomfortable with the actions of the current president and has done everything he can to document all of their interactions, and my guess is the under pointed questioning tomorrow, there are updates and other new items come out.

okaydo;842845075 said:

---

No way. She'd invite the scrutiny that Trump got a month ago, only it would be 10 times worse with the Republicans in control of Congress.

She'd never hear the end of it.

She would be blowing up her presidency with that move, which likely would already be mired in new Republican investigations on Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, Seth Rich, Vince Foster.

She would learn to live with Comey, since the point of his 10-year term is to be away from politics.

---

No, he'd be gone and he should be gone. He abused his position and rather than being away from politics he interjected himself, and set himself up as investigator, judge and jury for Hillary Clinton which is not the role of the FBI. Although Trump's reasons for firing him were ludicrously ironic, the reasons were valid.

ClaremontBear;842845079 said:

---

This is completely unsurprising. The media today is horrible. Things are spun and distorted to such a degree that it is unbelievable sometimes. I challenge everyone to do one thing: watch or read primary sources in their entirety before you read the news. You can use the White House's youtube channel. Almost all quotes from President Trump are taken during and after various ceremonies, most of which are uploaded to the channel. I am not saying you will change your political philosophies. But listen to the President for one month before you read the news and I guarantee you will lose all respect for outlets like CNN, Reuters, and The New York Times. They really are fake news. Their reporting is often completely detached from reality. And yes, you have the time. Watching one to three ten minute Youtube videos a day really isn't that big of a deal. Many of you consume hours of news media a day in various forms.

I'll give you one example that I guarantee none of you knew: President Trump has stated multiple times that he would consider passing healthcare reform with the Democrats rather than the Republicans. And no, FoxNews doesn't report this type of thing either.

---

The thing that is most amazing to me are the "bylines" at the bottom of the news channels are often completely wrong or misleading. I was watching the testimony live for a few minutes today, and both CNN and MSNB's running commentary misconstrued (or in some cases, mislead) what had just been said by the speaker. In some cases, things were just misleading (i.e., taking a statement that was qualified and reporting only part). That is the real fake news.

wifeisafurd;842845008 said:

---

I'm listening and reading his testimony, while multi-tasking, but so far I have not seen the explosiveness the media is reporting:

1) Comey is speaking in his boring testimony voice (effective for hearings, but not TV)
2) Comey admits telling Trump several times Trump was not the subject of investigation, but he had very good reasons for not saying so publicly. He didn't want to get caught in a situation where he would have to backtrack publicly (like he did with Clinton) if Trump did become a target. He also said he told Trump it was up to his boss in the AG office to make anything public (wonder if this explains why Trump is angry at Sessions).
3) Trump did try to persuade him to drop the Flynn investigation (we all knew he would testify to this, and candidly, Congress. past Presidents and other members of government make these types of pleas on behalf of constituents and others all the time).
4) He didn't take notes on Obama because he only talked with Obama twice briefly. i found it surprising that Obama met with his FBI Director that little. OTOH, Comey has met with Trump a surprising number of times already.
5) Trump stressed loyalty and also made somewhat erratic comments. Again, no surprise there when you look at Trump's tweets. Comey thought he had to make notes. No surprise either, I would. Comey comes off as sincere, and credible.

Not sure I see long term fallout here, other than reinforcing Trump is not a politician and doesn't seem ready to be President, something not to earth shattering. Also not sure why Trump wanted Comey fired, but I have not read the Rosenstein memo either. I think anything that matters will be coming from Mueller. So far, this has been a let down.

---

Can one of the attorney explain why Comey released his statement in advance? I don't think he was under in obligation to do so. It seem to be to his disadvantage by doing so, meaning the Republicans can prepared questions to refute some of portions of Comey's statement.

BearGoggles;842845084 said:

---

The thing that is most amazing to me are the "bylines" at the bottom of the news channels are often completely wrong or misleading. I was watching the testimony live for a few minutes today, and both CNN and MSNB's running commentary misconstrued (or in some cases, mislead) what had just been said by the speaker. In some cases, things were just misleading (i.e., taking a statement that was qualified and reporting only part). That is the real fake news.

---

Your talking about news crawls.

Bylines = "By" Somebody.

OBear073akaSMFan;842845085 said:

---

Can one of the attorney explain why Comey released his statement in advance? I don't think he was under in obligation to do so. It seem to be to his disadvantage by doing so, meaning the Republicans can prepared questions to refute some of portions of Comey's statement.

---

One thing I saw was that by releasing his statement early, he avoided any chance of the president trying to assert executive privilege.

He also gets a day of the news cycle/analysis before any real-time tweets during his testimony tomorrow.

ClaremontBear;842845079 said:

---

This is completely unsurprising. The media today is horrible. Things are spun and distorted to such a degree that it is unbelievable sometimes. I challenge everyone to do one thing: watch or read primary sources in their entirety before you read the news. You can use the White House's youtube channel. Almost all quotes from President Trump are taken during and after various ceremonies, most of which are uploaded to the channel. I am not saying you will change your political philosophies. But listen to the President for one month before you read the news and I guarantee you will lose all respect for outlets like CNN, Reuters, and The New York Times. They really are fake news. Their reporting is often completely detached from reality. And yes, you have the time. Watching one to three ten minute Youtube videos a day really isn't that big of a deal. Many of you consume hours of news media a day in various forms.

I'll give you one example that I guarantee none of you knew: President Trump has stated multiple times that he would consider passing healthcare reform with the Democrats rather than the Republicans. And no, FoxNews doesn't report this type of thing either.

---

Absolutely agree. Trump tells the truth when you hear what he says unfiltered. He never contradicts himself, and is always correct.

Same with Obama. That's why I only watched his press conferences unfiltered. Because he always told the truth.

Same with Sonny Dykes. That's why I avoided message boards and naysayer columnists. Dykes was always dead-on.

ClaremontBear;842845079 said:

---

This is completely unsurprising. The media today is horrible. Things are spun and distorted to such a degree that it is unbelievable sometimes. I challenge everyone to do one thing: watch or read primary sources in their entirety before you read the news. You can use the White House's youtube channel. Almost all quotes from President Trump are taken during and after various ceremonies, most of which are uploaded to the channel. I am not saying you will change your political philosophies. But listen to the President for one month before you read the news and I guarantee you will lose all respect for outlets like CNN, Reuters, and The New York Times. They really are fake news. Their reporting is often completely detached from reality. And yes, you have the time. Watching one to three ten minute Youtube videos a day really isn't that big of a deal. Many of you consume hours of news media a day in various forms.

I'll give you one example that I guarantee none of you knew: President Trump has stated multiple times that he would consider passing healthcare reform with the Democrats rather than the Republicans. And no, FoxNews doesn't report this type of thing either.

---

Should watch a documentary called All Governments Lie. It's basically a documentary about how much power the government has over media outlets. Really interesting stuff and goes more in depth into detail as to why CNN, Fox news etc. report the way that they do.

GB54;842845083 said:

---

No, he'd be gone and he should be gone. He abused his position and rather than being away from politics he interjected himself, and set himself up as investigator, judge and jury for Hillary Clinton which is not the role of the FBI. Although Trump's reasons for firing him were ludicrously ironic, the reasons were valid.

---

I've yet to hear a compelling argument that Comey didn't deserve to be fired. He botched the Clinton email thing - MASSIVELY and inexcusably. The only problem is that Trump doing so had horrible optics - not just that he did it but how.

Comey's replacement - christopher wray - seems to be getting bipartisan support. If trump had announced him when Comey was fired, it would have been a very different narrative. All of this shows that Trump's impulsiveness and narcissism prevent him from making politically smart decisions (not to mention tweets).

BTW - I think a MAJOR reason Trump fired Comey is that Comey was not actively and aggressively investigating the leaks - probably because many of the leaks were coming from the FBI or other Comey cronies.

okaydo;842845086 said:

---

Your talking about news crawls.

Bylines = "By" Somebody.

---

Yep - I meant the ticker/crawler thingamajigs.

ClaremontBear;842845079 said:

---

I'll give you one example that I guarantee none of you knew: President Trump has stated multiple times that he would consider passing healthcare reform with the Democrats rather than the Republicans. And no, FoxNews doesn't report this type of thing either.

---

I'll bite here. Trump has said a while host of things when it comes to health care and Medicare/Medicaid. On the campaign trail and in the past he has actually spoken in favor of health care needing to cover more people and cost less. However, once he took office, he has left health care to the Republicans in congress, who have focused on cutting benefits, reducing coverage and protections, and giving an enormous tax break to the wealthiest Americans (including huge cuts to Medicaid, which he vowed to protect).

Since he took office, the only times he has talked about working with Democrats is to threaten to blow the ACA in order to get Democrats to come to the table. If he had ever been serious about working with Democrats after he took office, the focus would have been on strengthening and improving the ACA, not cutting benefits and coverage protections for the poor/sick and cutting taxes for the wealthy. However, his whole goal is to get a "win", hence throwing support behind the AHCA (a bill that was basically passed outside any public scrutiny and before a CBO score was even available, and surprise, the effect of the ACA would be 23 million fewer insured and rising premiums for the poor/sick/old). So that statement about working with Democrats is a bit disingenuous; since he has become president, his whole goal has been to break the ACA, which is not a *real* offer to democrats to work with them.

Sonofoski;842845066 said:

---

I guess it's a let down to anyone who wants Trump removed.

From a legal standpoint, nothing is new and nothing is going to happen to Trump.

However, the special council is going to find someone to go down, not because of any Russia investigation, but because he has to; someone will misspeak under oath and will be guilty of perjury.

Remember Scooter Libby who gave confused testimony and was deemed have perjured himself. This is what is going to come out of all of this in addition to more taxpayer money going down the drain.

---

I suspect those that say there is nothing new here pooh poohed the original report of these items as being based on anonymous sources. What is new is the FBI director is verifying them and will do so in person under oath. We knew what he was going to say.

Obstruction of justice is an ambiguous statute and impeachment is a POLITICAL process, not a criminal one. The Republicans will not impeach for this. If the Democrats win the House, and Trump's approval ratings are the same or worse, and the Democrats think it is good for them politically to do so, they will impeach. This is enough to do it. The question is whether the public gets to the point they want it done, and if they do, whether or not the Democrats would rather wait and run against what would be under the circumstances a very unpopular president.

Coming back to whether there was anything new, one thing that is new was that Comey said the president was trying to create a patronage relationship with him.